• Urist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Were there really in accordance with the definition you are trying to enforce?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.

          The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?

          I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I never said anything about Cuba specifically. I made a general remark that an analysis of whether a country is socialist or not has to concern itself with what is the primary mode of production. I also wanted to bring in historical materialism because you seemed to talk about Marx without (seemingly) understanding this very important part of his contributions.

            To be clear, my position was, and still is, that I find your analysis faulty, regardless of what I think would be the right conclusion on Cuba being communist.